Barack Obama, Wednesday, 27 Jan 2010, State of the Union Address:
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
Sorry, Mr. Obama, but “gays” are not banned from serving. Those who have chosen homosexuality can join our military, just like people who choose to eat fatty foods can join the military. I believe you said this only because you have been told that since they cannot serve “openly gay”, their “civil rights” to express that lifestyle are being violated, which is something only a liberal would embrace or subscribe to. It is a banning of their “gayness” that bothers you and them. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the wonderful world of activism politics. My first question to you, Mr. Obama, would be: Have you really asked the military folks what they want? Or is this new call for “equal rights” merely your response to having pressure put onto you by pro-homosexual groups who are holding their money, and their Democratic votes, over your head.
Maybe this is yet another elitist attempt by you to let America know that you know what’s better for them than they do. “This is for your own good. I know better than you do as to what you need to be fulfilled and happy. So pipe down and let Daddy do his thing.” I believe it is a mixture of liberal condescension and elitist presumption. In all the arguments I have heard and seen regarding this issue, I have yet to see one time wherein the people this would most greatly affect- soldiers, Marines, and such- be asked their opinions.
As a Veteran of the military who served in an all-male MOS (Military Occupational Specialty), I can assure you that we never, and I mean never, wanted to ever know if someone in our unit was homosexual. We had a camaraderie based on the kind of trust that you have when you may need to put very your life into the hands of another. We were a military unit, a team, a true brotherhood. If one of us had “come out”, it would have destroyed the whole, because not a one of us were keen on homosexuality, nor did we ever feel the restrictions of political-correctness. We had no time for such matters. Our military world was not the civilian world, and we didn’t want it to be. We were special, separate, called to do a duty that our fathers and grandfathers did as younger men. Homosexuality and its acceptance were issues that the civilians had to contend with, but not us. Our mission didn’t afford us the luxury of being diverse or understanding to the plights and tribulations of a group of people who chose to kiss members of their own sex.
And while this may sound harsh to those of you who have never served in my MOS, I offer no apologies or excuses. Unless you were there beside me, you simply cannot judge.
Now, to be sure, things have changed in the military since my departure. From what I understand, weekly/monthly briefings are done on such topics as diversity, racism, sexual harassment, and emotional communication. Political-correctness has established a stronghold in our modern-day military, but for the life of me I do not know how this happened. I guess someone along the lines wanted the military to be kinder and gentler, and to adopt puppies, kittens, and have tea luncheons.
Homosexuals are strong-arming the President to influence Congress and make it so they can be “openly gay” and have protected “rights” because of their chosen homosexuality. (Will they wear rainbow triangles or something to that effect on their uniforms to insure their “protection” isn’t accidentally challenged by an off-hand remark from a heterosexual?) This will only lead to bad morale and lawsuits. Nothing good can come from this if Mr. Obama pushes for it like he has said he would.
The policy of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, instituted by President William Clinton in 1993, was for the best. Consider these words from Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen:
“Now is not the time,” the in-house advisers for Mullen wrote recently in a memorandum. “The importance of winning the wars we are in, along with the stress on the force, our body of knowledge and the number of unknowns, demand that we act with deliberation.”
If allowing homosexuals to be “openly gay” isn’t a good idea during war, when there is elevated stress, then what would happen if the homosexuals came in during peacetime and then a war broke out again? So many people who don’t serve on the front lines are debating this issue and using it as a political tool. Just once, just one single time, I would like to hear what the fighting men of our armed forces think about this.
Just once.









January 29th, 2010 at 3:11 am
Donald you think you know what your talking about but really you have no idea. Look peope don’t choose to be gay; Im gay and I did not choose my sexuality, you can argue with me all you like but I know the truth because I was born gay. People who suggest homosexuality is a choice generally do so because its then easier for them to act in a prejudiced manner towards homosexuals and lesbians. There is no logical reason for gays and lesbians to be banned from openly serving in the military.
January 29th, 2010 at 3:37 am
Usually people with this type of attitude are just scared they might be gay and that usually means they are. If not gay then Bisexual.
It’s just a matter of time until all these shallow haters die off and us younger more open minded people live on. Out with the old and in with the new.
January 29th, 2010 at 5:30 am
“There is no logical reason for gays and lesbians to be banned from openly serving in the military.”
well, there are but certainly many have served.
particularly during basic training, when the soldiers are in a crowded situation openly gay soldiers would be problematic. openly heterosexual behavior at that time is also problematic between male and female recruits.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:26 am
@Jason and jeff:
You’re both kidding, right?
Thanks for the comedy relief this morning! Awesome!
January 29th, 2010 at 6:41 am
openly heterosexual behavior at that time is also problematic between male and female recruits.
Right, so we should be focusing on inappropriate sexual habits and acts of all kinds. It’s not about the specifics of sexual behavior and desire; it’s about choosing an appropriate time and place to express it. I don’t care whether you’re gay or straight, you should be expected to uphold professionalism and polite respect, particularly in a military setting.
I have no problem requiring a certain level respect for personal boundaries and appropriate group behavior in the military. I just don’t think this “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy gives us a good line of demarcation. The policy should be based on behavior, not orientation.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:14 am
If a pansy can survive boot camp more power to him.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I served during the Carter administrartion, before “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and we had several gays aboard our ship. Everybody knew who they were and aside from some occasional good natured ribbing, nobody bothered them and they bothered nobody.
As long as they do their jobs, and they did, what’s the problem? I never understood the whole mess.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
yeah but that was the navy, they have been gay for years
January 29th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
OUCH!!!
January 29th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
flyingmonkey = dude on the right
http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/village_people.jpg
January 29th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
@fm,
Sorry brother, but lisab’s comment was pretty funny! And the photo link from Rhay only made it worse!
All kidding aside, thanks for your service to our great Nation. My father retired from the US Navy as a CWO3, I believe it was. He made it to E7 and then transitioned to Warrant.
Go Army, beat Navy!
January 29th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Actually, Rhay’s picture reminds me of how much the Navy had it’s head in the sand on the whole issue.
One day I watched from my ships flying bridge as the Village People were filming a Navy recruitment film on a ship moored at the next pier. It wasn’t until after completeion of the project that the Navy learned that they were gay and scrapped the whole thing.
Everybody knew but the navy!!!
January 29th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Life on a Navy ship at sea consists of sleeping until you’re hungry, eating until you’re sleepy and doing the same thing tomorrow.
January 29th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I could care less who fights next to me as long as he wants my enemy as dead as I do.
But if you’re staring at my a$$ gets us both killed I’m gonna be angry
February 1st, 2010 at 1:19 am
What is really the difference between DADT and an environment of “open” homosexuality? It’s all about homo/bisexuals acting out their homo or bisexuality towards other military colleagues. And that, in practice, is mostly about having the right to (homo)sexually harass others camouflaged under some shpiel about freedom of discrimination. It’s too bad for the rest of us that DADT can’t be applied to all other spheres of society. In every non-military job environment that I’ve been in where there were homosexuals and bisexuals, they constantly attempted to harass others with homosexual behaviors. Constantly. And, in my experience, there are at least as many closeted bisexual women (often married) as homosexual ones. Assuming a woman is exclusively heterosexual because she is married is nowadays an extremely naive position. Assuming that human beings keep their sexuality to their “bedroom” is one of the today’s greatest fallacies. They don’t and a troubled work environment is the result. Corporations would do much better to investigate such problems, and follow the military example, because closeted homosexuals and bisexuals constantly make unwanted advances towards others, with varying degrees of aggressiveness, and they create all kinds of relationship problems for people in the workplace.